DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 01/08/2026. Amended claims 1, 3-4, 8, 12-13, and 15 are acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending. Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, in line 2, “wherein the first mesh part contacts…” should read –wherein the first mesh parts contact…--.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is objected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the claim recites the limitation "the vapor channels" in lines 3 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For the purpose of this examination, the claims have been interpreted to mean, in lines 3 and 15, respectively:
--…sizes than vapor channels of the vapor transport layer to prevent the vapor channels from…--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wong (US 2024/0302108).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses:
a thermal ground plane (100) (figs. 1A-1C) [par. 0029], including:
a first casing layer (120) (figs. 1A-1C);
a second casing layer (110) where outer peripheries of the second casing layer (110) are hermetically sealed with outer peripheries of the first casing layer (120) to form a TGP housing case (the case of 100) (figs. 1A-1C) [par. 0003, as it applies to the embodiment of figs. 1A-1C];
a vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) disposed nearby the first casing layer (120) in the TGP housing case (the case of 100) (fig. 1B) [par. 0035];
a liquid transport layer (113 plus 140) disposed nearby the second casing layer (110) in the TGP housing case (the case of 100) (fig. 1B) [par. 0031 and 0032]; and
a working fluid filled in the TGP housing case (the case of 100) [par. 0039], and
a planar mesh structure (130), which is disposed between the vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) and the liquid transport layer (113 plus 140) to separate the vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) and the liquid transport layer (113 plus 140) [par. 0032], wherein the working fluid flows between the planar mesh structure (130), the vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) and the liquid transport layer (113 plus 140) (seen in fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 5, the recitation "the vapor transport layer and the liquid transport layer being formed into an integrated part structure by a compression step" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Wong is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Wong discloses:
the planar mesh structure (130) including a plurality of pores [par. 0041], the pores including smaller sizes than vapor channels (124) of the vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) (as can be gleaned from fig. 1B).
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 15 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “to prevent the vapor in the vapor channels from flowing into the liquid transport layer” limitation, the invention as taught by Wong is deemed fully capable of performing such function. Refer to MPEP 2114 (II). In the instant case, the system disclosed by Wong, having the structure claimed, is capable of functioning in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 17, the recitation "the hermetic seal between the first and second casing layers are shaped by thermocompression bonding or laser welding, to form the TGP housing case" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Wong, is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Wong discloses:
a thermal ground plane (100) (figs. 1A-1C) [par. 0029], including:
a first casing layer (120) (figs. 1A-1C);
a second casing layer (110) where outer peripheries of the second casing layer (110) are hermetically sealed with outer peripheries of the first casing layer (120) to form a TGP housing case (the case of 100) (figs. 1A-1C) [par. 0003, as it applies to the embodiment of figs. 1A-1C];
a vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) disposed nearby the first casing layer (120) in the TGP housing case (the case of 100) (fig. 1B) [par. 0035];
a liquid transport layer (113 plus 140) disposed nearby the second casing layer (110) in the TGP housing case (the case of 100) (fig. 1B) [par. 0031 and 0032]; and
a working fluid filled in the TGP housing case (the case of 100) [par. 0039], and
a planar mesh structure (130), which is disposed between the vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) and the liquid transport layer (113 plus 140) to separate the vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) and the liquid transport layer (113 plus 140) [par. 0032], wherein the working fluid flows between the planar mesh structure (130), the vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) and the liquid transport layer (113 plus 140) (seen in fig. 1C).
wherein the planar mesh structure (130) including a plurality of pores [par. 0041], the pores including smaller sizes than vapor channels (124) of the vapor transport layer (plurality of channels 124) (as can be gleaned from fig. 1B).
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 15 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “to prevent the vapor in the vapor channels from flowing into the liquid transport layer” limitation, the invention as taught by Wong is deemed fully capable of performing such function. Refer to MPEP 2114 (II). In the instant case, the system disclosed by Wong, having the structure claimed, is capable of functioning in a similar manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong.
Regarding claim 11, Wong discloses:
the liquid transport layer (113 plus 140) including at least two structures (113 plus 140) [par. 0031-0032], each of the structures (113 plus 140) including at least one capillary channel (114, of 113; and, channels of metal powder 140, par. 0045, known in the art) which uses capillary phenomena to transport the working fluid (known in the art).
Wong does not disclose:
the liquid transport layer including a mesh structure.
However, it is old and known in the art that the most common materials used in manufacturing heat pipe wicks are sintered copper wicks, screen mesh wicks and grooved wicks (Wong), and it is also known that sintered wicks can handle high heat flux and work well against gravity as compared to screen/mesh wicks used to make heat pipes/vapor chambers as thin as possible, for instance. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Refer to MPEP 2143 (I) (E). In this instance, it would have been obvious to try the liquid transport layer comprising a mesh structure to achieve a desired heat transfer coefficient. Furthermore, the election of a known material like copper based on its suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 16, Wong discloses:
the material of the first and second casing layers, includes a combination of copper, polymer, stainless steel, and composite material of copper and polymer.
However, in the Office Action dated 10/08/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that the use of casings or pipes comprising a combination of copper, polymer, stainless steel, and composite material of copper and polymer is old and well known in the vapor chamber/thermal ground plane art. Applicant has failed to traverse this statement. As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statement is now considered admitted prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 4, 6, 8-10 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the Office Action mailed 10/08/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments with respect to allowability of newly amended claim 1 and new claim 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Newly amended claim 1 now incorporates the limitations of claim 7. However, claim 7 depended of claim 3, which limitations are not incorporated into newly amended claim 1. New claim 20 includes all the language of claims 1, 2 and 15. However, claim 15 depended on claim 7 and 3, which limitations are not incorporated into new claim 20. Therefore, newly amended claim 1 and new claim 20 are not allowable. Please refer to the rejections, above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights